Massive support for adults-only games

May 10, 2010

Over 98 per cent of submissions received during the Federal Government's recent public consultation about video game classification were in favour of introducing an R18+ rating.

But censorship ministers at Friday's Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting in Melbourne agreed that further work needs to be done before a decision can be made on the proposed introduction of an R18+ games rating.

A status report released by Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Brendan O'Connor MP, says the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department received 59,678 submissions via email, fax, post, as well as from the retailer EB Games and from the organisation Grow Up Australia.

Preliminary figures in the report show 58,589 (98.2%) of submissions supported the introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games, while 1089 (1.8%) opposed its introduction.

The majority of respondents were in the age category 18-24 years (10,104), followed by 25 34 years (7959), under 18 years (2629) and 35-44 years (2208). The majority of respondents were male (21,832 compared to 2444).

The vast majority of respondents indicated that they "strongly agreed" with the following statements:

- Adults should not be prevented from playing R18+ level computer games simply because they are unsuitable for minors.

- The R18+ classification category sends a clear, unambiguous message to parents that the game material is unsuitable for minors.

- Consistent classification categories for films and computer games are easier to understand.

- A new classification will supplement technological controls on minors’ access to age inappropriate computer games.

- Comparable classification systems internationally have an adult rating for computer games - international parity is desirable.

- Consumers access games which would be R18+ illegally - it would be better if they were legally available with appropriate restrictions.

The vast majority of respondents indicated that they "strongly disagreed" with the following statements:

- Minors would be more likely to be exposed to computer games that are unsuitable for them.
- It would be difficult for parents to enforce age restrictions for computer games.

- Computer games should be treated differently from films given the specific, negative effects of interactivity on players, particularly their participation in violent and aggressive content.

- An R18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high-level material in indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people.

- There is no demonstrated need to change existing restrictions.

Some of the most common arguments in the "free text" option where respondents were invited to write up to 250 words to expand on their submission included:

- A lack of an R18+ classification for computer games restricts the civil liberties of adult gamers.

- What content children access is a parent/guardian responsibility.

- There is an inconsistency between the classification categories of films and computer games.

- Because of the lack of an R18+ classification, the Classification Board stretches the limits of the MA15+ classification category to allow R18+ material.

- The lack of an R18+ classification means that the Australian classification categories are inconsistent with the rest of the world.

- Computer games are now an adult form of entertainment and the average age of a gamer is over 18.

- An 18+ restriction exists for other adult activities. Games should not be singled out.

- There is a lack of evidence that games are harmful to society.

- An R18+ rating will provide more guidance to parents.

- The lack of an R18+ classification for computer games has a negative impact on the Australian computer games industry.

- The games which are classified Refused Classification in Australia can be bought overseas and imported.

- The games that are currently classified Refused Classification in Australia can be downloaded online.

- R18+ games would be too violent.

- Young people are accessing games that their parent should not allow anyway.

- The requirement for unanimous agreement by all Censorship Ministers to introduce an R18+ classification for computer games is too stringent.

- Games are more interactive than films.

The department received 34 submissions from community, church and industry groups. Of these, 53 per cent supported the introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games while 47 per cent were opposed.

Organisations opposed included the Australian Christian Lobby, Australian Council on Children and the Media (Young Media Australia), Australian Family Association (Western Australian Branch), some members of the Parliament of Western Australia, Media Standards Australia, and the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia.

Groups supportive of an R18+ rating included the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Australian Computer Society, Australian Democrats, Australian Interactive Media Industry, Association Civil Liberties Australia, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, and Telstra.

Meanwhile, late last week the President of EA Games gave his support for the campaign for an R18+ rating. Frank Gibeau says it is "important to remind ourselves that in today's global video gaming audience, the average age of a gamer is 28".

"At EA we are committed to the belief that adult consumers can have responsibility for their entertainment choices," says Mr Gibeau. "Just as a grown-ups can decide to see a film or read a book with mature themes, so should he or she be entitled to choose the same in interactive entertainment.

"Government policies that don’t allow for the rating of mature content in video games effectively censor entertainment choices for adults. These policies show a poor understanding of today's video gaming audience. Existing legislation in Australia that limits age ratings of games to 16, demonstrates a distance between those policies and the reality of the video game industry and the people that play interactive games in Australia today."

Mr Gibeau says the spectrum of gamers is "as wide as the viewership of television, movies, theatre, and the readers of books".

"Governments don’t insist that all books be written for children, or that all television shows be cartoons. Adult gamers want their governments to treat them with the same respect they get as movie goers and book readers. Adult Australians should be allowed to choose the games they play, including those with mature themes."

Mr Gibeau says robust rating systems "have been proven as the most efficient way to protect children from inappropriate content and offer parents the right set of information about a game".

"A government policy that keeps our mature games out of stores and forces developers to rewrite code is censorship. It also forces lesser quality games into that marketplace, often stripped of their intended content and features. What will be next? Will adults be forced to see edited versions of mature films? Read books with certain chapters removed?

"As policy measures increase restrictions on available content, so too will consumers increase the practice of parallel imports from neighbouring or same-language markets, depriving their home country economy of the associated industry revenue."

Mr Gibeau says the lack of an R18+ rating could also be harming Australia's game development community.

"As the Australian government moves to participate in the economy of the global gaming market, policy makers should consider the environment they create for game makers. Governments that design policies hostile to game developers and their creative medium will struggle to attract investment from the global industry.

"The global gaming industry is robust and growing faster than any other entertainment medium. It has already largely surpassed cinema and music. If Australia seeks to benefit from this tremendous creative and economic opportunity, its policies should reflect an understanding of the marketplace and a willingness to participate.

"A change in the Australian age rating system is needed. We call on the Attorneys General in their next general session to vote unanimously in favour of the introduction of an 18+ rating for video games to allow adults to make their own choices about the entertainment they choose to enjoy. The implementation of a new 18+ age rating classification is the right step for consumers, and for the industry, in Australia."

Post a comment

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Recent comments

Leigh

May 10, 2010

08:28 AM

I was fortunate enough to get a reply to my letter to the NT Attorney General, it contained answers to my questions which I thought were concise and easy to understand, it said however the NT Government is still developing its position on the issue.

Now, I can understand WHY nobody at the meeting would want their actual yay-or-nay position to be known to the public after what happened to Michael Atkinson, but did any of them come and categorically say they were for or against this?

ArghZombies

May 10, 2010

08:55 AM

Fingers crossed that it passes and we dont hear another word on this bloody (see what i did there??) R18 debate!

Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia are opposed? hahahahaha!

thy_dungeonman

May 10, 2010

09:05 AM

"Existing legislation in Australia that limits age ratings of games to 16, demonstrates a distance between those policies and the reality of the video game industry and the people that play interactive games in Australia today."

He should do some research.

All I have to say on the rest of this issue is this: the classification guidelines already take interactivity into account, this puts games level with films, there's no difference, introduce an R18 rating already."

Felix

May 10, 2010

09:50 AM

Of course, the other thing that stunk about the Ag meeting is that the NT A-G didn't make it, which pretty much sunk any hopes for a quick decision on the issue. Also, you know, election year and all... The sad fact is that I feel at the moment that this issue won't be resolved until the current generation of 'leaders' moves on, and Gen X/Y are in charge.

Also: the Shooter's Party is *opposed* to the rating? Isn't that a little hypocritical/self-serving?

Darryn

May 10, 2010

10:08 AM

I hope the government lives up to it's mantra of governing to 'community standard'. Though I dont believe in such a thing, 98% in favour is the best evidence I've seen for that approach.

death to nerds

May 10, 2010

10:14 AM

'Also: the Shooter's Party is *opposed* to the rating? Isn't that a little hypocritical/self-serving?'

They're in the 'Get a REAL gun' camp...

Jason Hill

May 10, 2010

10:49 AM

Those interested in the battle for internet freedom might be interested in a couple of programs tonight.

FOUR CORNERS: ACCESS DENIED will be screened on ABC1 at 8.30pm - "a story that reveals how an apparently well meaning attempt by government to protect children from video nasties on the net turned into a policy that critics say promotes censorship and reduces personal freedom."

Then at 9.30pm, Q&A will feature "a lively debate on the battle for internet freedom". The panel includes Brendan O’Connor, Minister for Home Affairs.

unique_stephen

May 10, 2010

11:09 AM

I think that the comment in the article is the clincher:

"Governments don’t insist that all books be written for children, or that all television shows be cartoons. Adult gamers want their governments to treat them with the same respect they get as movie goers and book readers. Adult Australians should be allowed to choose the games they play, including those with mature themes."

That's spot on.

Grassfire

May 10, 2010

11:42 AM

*Ponders the situation whereby I will be hoping my ladder match of L4D2 finishes in time to watch a four-corners episode on censorship*

Lith

May 10, 2010

11:43 AM

I'm a bit confused about the figures presented. Were some of the personal details fields optional? Were there a large number of submissions with multiple signatories?

The total figure quoted is 59,678, and if my calculations are correct, 24,276 were either male or female. Did we allow 35,000 sentient machines to make submissions? If that is the case, I think their responses should be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism - they do have a vested interest in destabilising and ultimately destroying humanity.

Jason says: The 35,000 not included in that figure are the ones received in bulk from the likes of EB and Grow Up Australia.

TSB

May 10, 2010

11:49 AM

Good effort by the R18+ advocates. It's a poor reflection of our politics that their contribution will probably be as easily shrugged off as the opposition to Australia joining the invasion of Iraq was. I see hints in this article that WA will step up to take the heat off SA in blocking reform.

Lith

May 10, 2010

12:00 PM

Thanks, Jason. I thought that was probably the case. They obviously did quite a good job of drumming up support, coming in with more than half of the total submissions.

RealityCheck

May 10, 2010

12:40 PM

I personally preferred Liths explanation. >

Joka

May 10, 2010

01:19 PM

As long as there is a revamp to the whole classification system for gaming, then I'm happy.

Felix

May 10, 2010

01:20 PM

@TSB: WA are blocking it? Yet another reason to support their secession, then :)

Weren't they clearing this up? I remember there being a purge of 'sexy' apps a few months ago...

ngai0

May 10, 2010

02:24 PM

Numbers count for nothing when the system is broken!
It is simply irresponsible and incompetent for the Regulators not to provide a system of guidance and control that encompasses classifications across the spectrum and media of common usage.
To the regulators, the Attorney Generals, my message is grow up, do your job, take your heads out of the sand and stop behaving like a King Canute.

Misty

May 10, 2010

02:42 PM

Hmm, the total of 59,678 is probably not the number of unique submissions. I submitted a personal submission and signed the petition with EB games. No doubt some people did all three and submitted to Grow Up Australia too. That could inflate the figures a little unless they went through and removed multiple contributions from the same people.

Ronny

May 10, 2010

03:00 PM

Re: Shooters Party.

They're with the "Healthy Outdoors Activity" brigade who don't like computer games because they keep people away from Real Life. If you're going to shoot somebody, you should be doing it in reality, not virtually.

I always wonder - there have been studies that started with calm people and checked whether playing violent games made them violent. Has there ever been a trial as to whether playing games (ideally checking both violent and nonviolent) makes a violent-feeling person *less* violent? i.e. do games help people "let off steam"?

Az

May 10, 2010

03:21 PM

I fear all this will come to absolutely nothing until our "donations" to the relevant political parties are greater than those of the churchy groups. They know where their bread is buttered.

luverly_5pam

May 10, 2010

03:23 PM

I dunno about you guys, but I look at the figure of 59,678 submissions and all I can think is "Darn, 322 submissions short of cracking 60K..."

Anyone Else?

No?

Just me then?

/returns to my corner

singo the dingo

May 10, 2010

03:47 PM

@luverly_5pam - The worst part is missing the "Suck it Fundies, R18+ granted" achievement

Wall

May 10, 2010

05:06 PM

I still celebrate nothing until we see actual change.

I'd hate to be pessimistic about the process, but that number of submissions is horribly small, even if each one represents another five people or whatever the stat is.

To be honest, wouldn't you look at the number of submissions and say "We'd only be pissing off a handful of people if we don't change."

Blenny

May 10, 2010

06:17 PM

@ Wall

Hopefully they look at the numbers as a general indication of greater community sentiment. My question would be how does that number compare to the number of responses they general get to a public consultation paper?

But I agree, I won't be counting my chickens just yet...

XD

May 11, 2010

09:29 AM

@Blenny - compared to normal public consultation papers, this response counts as "mind-bogglingly overwhelming". On most issues you'd be lucky to reach three figures.

du doan bong da

May 12, 2010

01:20 AM

I'm a bit confused about the figures presented. Were some of the personal details fields optional?

"A strong response from gamer groups in the Australian federal government's R18+ public consultation has led censorship ministers to claim that more views from the community are needed before a decision into the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games can be reached.

Last week, Federal Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor released a preliminary report into the results of the R18+ public consultation, which took place from December 2009 to February 2010. Along with news of initial responses to the consultation, O'Connor also made it known that ministers had agreed that "…further work needs to be done before a decision can be made." According to O'Connor, the ministers had already "…requested further analysis of community and expert views."

It now appears that the reason for this setback is the overwhelming response from gamers in the public consultation. Of the 59,678 submissions, 86 percent came from retailer EB Games and the pro-R18+ organisation Grow Up Australia. O'Connor's office told GameSpot AU today that ministers had agreed that a broader consultation of the public's views was needed following the dominant response from "interest groups."

Translation: We didn't get the outcome we wanted so we're going to shelve the issue and see if we can't get what we want in 12 months.

Well guess what, an election is coming up and if the Internet Filter wasn't already a brilliant reason to put Labour last on the ballot, this is another one.

Lucid Fugue

May 12, 2010

12:52 PM

It does seem like a strange statement.

Considering they can identify submissions from interest groups, striking them from the record gives them what? The usual miniscule amount of responses these public consultation papers get?

And I do like Ron Curry's response. I'd love to hear Brendan O'Connor defend his position against this sort of logic.

luverly_5pam

May 12, 2010

01:48 PM

Yeah, that stinks. Gamers are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.
If there had been an underwhelming response from gamers, the conclusion would have been that "No-one really wants a R18 rating, so we don't have to change."
Because there has been an overwhelming response the conclusion was "We have only heard from a bunch of rabid zealots, we don't know what the community wants, so we can't make a change."

"ministers had agreed that a broader consultation of the public's views was needed following the dominant response from "interest groups."

How does it feel to no longer be a member of the general public guys? One thing that becomes very clear to anyone who spends even a brief amount of time reading Screen Play will realise that gamers DO represent a broad cross-section of general society. Looking at Your Turn contributors alone, we have seen people with families, single gamers, people with high flying jobs, students, professionals, tradespeople, guys, girls, people in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's. Todays excellent piece is written by an current Australian Serviceman. But we are all biased because we play games. It angers me that all these submissions are being sidelined on the assumption that all gamers are still all spotty teenage male shutins sho live in their parents basements and have no real friends. By writing off submissions from passionate gamers as worthless because they are from 'interest groups' reeks.

Nicolai

May 12, 2010

02:31 PM

Should we not also block all the submissions then from all Political parties because they too are biased one way or the other? What about Church groups who are both in support of and against the idea of an R18+ rating. Where do we stop censoring our population's right to be heard on this issue?

Both sides have had the opportunity to mobilise support, both sides had plenty of time in which to do so and yet 98.2% of submissions being in support of an introduction of an R18+ rating isn't enough to give it political impetus? I realise politicians are favouring their friends and supporters first and foremost and those people are more likely to be parents offloading some of the work onto others or powerful lobbying bodies like the Australian Christian Lobby which wields a truly frightening amount of power as it exercises it on both sides of the political fence.

Though given the domination of Labor by Unity (the right wing Christian-oriented arm) rather than Socialist Left and the "You must do what the party decides as a majority or you're out even if it means accurately representing your constituents" policy of a binding caucus, it's often not much of a difference between a country led by either side. That said, how do we get these people to recognise democracy? 1/10 of Melbourne famously demonstrated against Workchoices in a rally and Howard did it anyway. 350,000 people in one city and you think you're still right? I honestly don't see what hope we have to get sane discourse happening in the face of overwhelming bias for poorly understood reasons. Perhaps Senator Conroy should learn to be a better parent instead of advocating Internet Censorship.

Wall

May 12, 2010

07:34 PM

Last pessimistic comment on the issue... or on this post, I promise.

What's a good way of saying 'I told you so' without saying it? I guess it's too late.

Pure and simple, I don't think the government wants to do anything at all about it, we just don't make up that much of the voting public. It's way too easy to look like you're doing something moral and upstanding by erring on the side of caution, and by and large, you only piss-off yet another minority that isn't even socially or physically disadvantaged - hardly culturally disadvantaged these days.

This is simply not an important political issue and I never expected it to be, even if I did get my submission in and draft, review and carefully polish the 250 words I got to list at the end of the submission paper.

I'd love to have the energy to fight the good fight but honestly, I have absolutely no faith in there ever being a wider understanding of gaming and gaming culture.

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Video games are the new pop. Australians now spend more money on shooters and sims than hip hop and punk rock. Debate the latest news and trends in interactive entertainment with award-winning games writer Jason Hill.